Suggestions from 21 Buraku Residents

by

Alastair McLauchlan

1. Introduction to the Buraku Issue

Almost a decade after the Meiji Government’s 1871
Emancipation Edict (Eta Kaihō Rei)
legally liberated the eta and hinin – regarded as the
forerunners to today’s burakujūmin2–from their Tokugawa outcast status, a Ministry of Justice
publication still described them as only marginally better than birds and
animals, and among the lowest form of human beings3. A century later, their
circumstances had improved so little that in its 1965 Deliberative Council
Report4, the government acknowledged widespread burakujūmin
poverty, prejudice, discrimination, and neglect of their civil,
social and economic human rights5. Extensive funding under the government’s
Special Measures Legislation (SML) since 1969 meant that during the 1970s
and 1980s, buraku environmental conditions improved quickly6. However,
the psychological domain of anti-burakujūmin
prejudice remains a problem in Japan today and approximately one-third of
all burakujūmin families report
having experienced at least one incident of anti-burakujūmin
prejudice or discrimination7. The closest figure we have to quantitatively
measure anti-burakujūmin
prejudice is that 11.8 per cent of all Japanese adults would discontinue an
existing friendship if they subsequently discovered a buraku
connection8, although this is an unrealistically conservative figure9.

The BKD (The Buraku Kaihō
Dōmei - The Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute) is especially active in Kansai where it has a
very high profile, mainly through its tactics of denunciation10, media
censorship11 and its almost unilateral control of SML funding distribution.
The BKD is in total conflict with the other major player in the liberation
movement, the Zenkairen (All Japan Federation of Buraku Liberation) which broke away from its parent body in the
1970s because it disagreed with the BKD’s aggressive strategies of publicity
and direct confrontation. The Zenkairen believes that prejudice is
steadily disappearing and advocates a milder approach and both groups remain
bitter enemies. Finding a solution to social prejudice founded on a mixture
of old-fashioned beliefs, envy over government funding and fear of the
activists’ tactics12 remains an elusive task. While mainstream detractors tend
to blame buraku residents for their situation, what has been missing
from the literature is how the residents themselves perceive those
attitudes.

2. Research Method

During July and August 2001, I lived in a buraku
community in east Osaka and conducted in-depth interviews with 21 residents
to generate the raw data for this article. Interviews were conducted in
Japanese by myself, all were audio-taped and lasted an average of 38
minutes. Buraku X has a population of approximately 1200 people,
almost one-half of whom are so-called burakujūmin,
with the remainder being mainstream Japanese, Korean and Chinese families
who have shifted into the buraku in search of cheap accommodation13.
The phenomenological research method which informs this paper seeks its
interviewees, not by random sampling, but on the grounds that they have the
necessary ‘phenomenon’. In this study, the volunteer respondents were simply
required to be residing, or to have resided, in the buraku and to
have personally experienced anti-burakujūmin
prejudice

3. Suggested Solutions from 21 Buraku X Residents

The overall impression from my 21 interviewees in
Buraku X is that there are solutions to solving anti-buraku
prejudice and that only if those particular solutions, predominantly
BKD strategies, are implemented, will buraku residents start to see a
decline in psychological prejudice. However, this does not mean that they
all agree on what the solutions are and, if some of the interviewees could
be privy to what some of the others had suggested, there would be lively
debate. Almost unanimously, they claimed to want a solution for the sake of
their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and that they think in
terms of future generations is a positive sign in itself, in spite of 19 out
of 21 predicting that the problem will not be solved in the next 100 years.
Figure 1 sets out the main themes of what the Buraku residents I interviewed
see as solutions to problem with the numbers representing the frequency of each comment during
the 21 interviews.

3.1 Mainstream Japanese Must Visit the Buraku

Non-pressured, well rationalised contact with rejected
social groups is well documented as one of the ways to ease
in-group/out-group friction. The most popular solution offered during the
interviews was that mainstream people need to come into the buraku
areas and see the reality of the modern buraku. In other words, come
and see that the area is clean, that it is not dangerous, that the residents
are not “polluted” or members of the yakuza, for example. The
standing invitation from the BKD is for all Japanese to use and enjoy the
public facilities in the buraku, as all were built with public funds
and are therefore available for all Japanese people to use14. Seventeen
interviewees reiterated this invitation for my benefit, of whom twelve then
explained that they would never expect those mainstream Japanese who are
prejudiced to actually set foot in the buraku. Six interviewees
wanted to think that the reason many mainstream Japanese people will not
come into the buraku is simply because they would then realise that
there is nothing there to discriminate against and they would no longer know
how to justify their prejudice. [N, male 73] described these people as among
the “lots of mainstream who cannot, and will not, let go of their
prejudice”. [Q, male 43] runs a youth club for a neighbouring buraku
and has enjoyed real success in his efforts at getting young mainstream
children from nearby to join in. Many of the parents were suspicious at
first, but the children have never looked back. [Q] explained that the
parents are still reluctant to come and join in with the mixture of
mainstream/buraku children and is fearful of how the children’s
attitudes may change later, especially when it comes to marriage. [Q], [K,
female, 54] and [G, male, 47] expressed typical opinions:

We want them to visit us, meet the residents and then
they will change their minds. You can’t just dislike something without
trying it and you can’t have an opinion about us without seeing us on our
turf. [Q]

All human beings have the same blood…I want other
people to come here and talk to us…put themselves in our shoes and try to
imagine what it is like to be discriminated against…the old Edo caste
system is still here today. [K]

We have always lived under a cloud of prejudice but I
am sure that many people could change if they knew a little more about our
ancestry and character. And that we feel traumatized by what we have been
through… [G]

During my stay in Buraku X, I became very aware of
the very restricted business hours (the proprietors later explained that
this was because of the lack of outsider patronage) of the only two very
small eating establishments and of what seemed like so many outside families
physically avoiding walking through the buraku on their way to a
Sunday festival in the neighbouring park. Mainstream Japanese families
deliberately circumnavigating the buraku intensifies the frustration
that buraku residents feel about being avoided, but it may be that
those mainstream people feel they have reasons of their own. Perhaps they
fear saying or doing the wrong thing, or perhaps they simply do not want to
be bombarded by the huge number of aggressive slogans and notice-boards on
every available fence and wall in Buraku X, fearing the BKD’s
aggressively expressed demands for retribution against transgressors and
society in general15. So while the notion of getting mainstream people into
the buraku has a great deal of merit, apart from being clean, safe,
and “Japanese”, the buraku may have to work towards making itself
seem more welcoming and less threatening. Perhaps some of those people who
avoided walking through the buraku have been harangued by outspoken
residents, or perhaps they know someone who has been told to “shuttup”
([Q]’s standard response to any criticism) when expressing an unpopular
opinion, or perhaps they do not yet realise that the BKD’s despised
denunciation process is no longer the frightening infringement on human
rights it once was. Whatever the reason, 17 of the residents I interviewed
insisted that the buraku environment is now such that if mainstream
Japanese would come inside the buraku and see for themselves, they
may begin to feel less negatively about the residents.

3.2. Legislation and the Government’s Role

The BKD’s own Fundamental Law16 which it drafted almost 20
years ago, is regarded by 13 residents as essential to finding a solution,
while a further three respondents urged anti-prejudice legislation without
specifying directly the BKD’s Fundamental Law. In 1969 the government
promised legislation to eradicate anti-buraku prejudice, but since
then has steadfastly refused to do so. Instead, it refers activists to
Article 14 of the Constitution and the International Declaration of Human
Rights17. This is not unreasonable, except, as the BKD
is quick to point out, such documents have no power to punish transgressors.
[P, female, 53] was very quick to remind me that the government promised
legislation in 1969 while [J, female, 51] was one of three who made the point
that there is no “force of law” in documents like the Constitution. Typical
of the rationale for legislation was [G]’s reasoning that the success of
anti-discrimination laws in America could prove equally effective in Japan.
[H, male, 41] and three others, while also keen to see the law, were rather
more circumspect as to whether it would have the desired effect:

As a basic strategy I think it would help. I mean we
have the rules of the road but people still speed and jump red lights and
so on…it hasn’t stopped them so laws don’t necessarily make people do what
we want. But they do set the ground rules and from that point of view, I
think the Fundamental Law would be a good thing.

[K, female, 54] was also keen to have the law, but, with
three others, remained aggressively resolute that “only by the activities of
the BKD can we really make people change the way they think”. Several were
not actually sure what sort of legislation would be best, but felt
nonetheless that something was necessary, a stance typified by [C, male,
32]:

I am convinced that we do need some form of legislation
…I personally believe that it doesn’t matter too much what sort of
legislation it is or what it says…maybe the Fundamental Law would be the
best.

Although currently (2002) musing over the format of a
proposed policy to protect minority groups such as foreigners, women and
“ancestors of former outcasts”, the government has no intention of
introducing the Fundamental Law, for such a move would be tantamount to a
surrender to the demands of a most unpopular, left-wing activist group. In
tandem with seeking legislation as a solution, all but four respondents
blame the government, to some extent, for their woes and, while eight of
these also positively acknowledged the government’s role in improving their
daily lives via the SML programme, [K] was much less affirming:

The government hasn’t willingly done much for us at
all, ye know. That might sound a bit harsh, but we are still stuck with
discrimination and they haven’t done anything about it.

Overall, however, there was no quarter given in their
anger at the government over continued prejudice. Comments by [Q] and [B,
female, 33], for example, represent those of a full 15 of the respondents
who saw it in absolutely clear-cut terms:

It is clearly the government’s responsibility to get
rid of the problem…but there are so many things the government claims they
have to do before they could even consider our problems. [Q]

The government has no option but to get some sort of
reform under way to protect the weak people in society. [B]

In terms of taking the issue further than merely what the
government has done or has not done, or merely expressing the desire for
some form of legislation, only [T, female, 53] actually offered a political
strategy. [T] was keen to see young buraku people become better
educated, work as local body politicians and eventually get into parliament
where they can have some influence over legislation and how people are
treated18. [F, male, 37] had also thought this issue through quite deeply and
located the issue of legislation within Japan’s already very regulated
society. Noting that the “power of law in Japan is considerable”, [F] felt
that legislation would help the cause, if not by changing the way people
behave, then at least with some form of “publicly approved punishment” for
transgressors. This was a direct reference to the fact that denunciation is
widely loathed by mainstream Japan and by the Japanese government and [F]’s
hint at the need for something more palatable was the only comment in the
interviews that carried such a meaning. It is noteworthy that, although [F]’s
wife is also from the buraku, their involvement with the BKD was
originally because of their child’s physical handicap rather than to fight
for the buraku cause. His attitude to many issues was notably less
aggressive and much more flexible than that of most of the others.

The pros and cons of anti-prejudice legislation are many
and varied but, for as long as the government refuses to even entertain the
promise it made in 1969, it has left the BKD with the upper hand. The
organisation claims legality by default and remains adamant that it has no
alternative but to persevere with its denunciation sessions. The government
is in a most difficult situation here, because, while becoming increasingly
uneasy about the denunciation process, it has never been able to respond to
the BKD’s continued claims that, in the absence of legislation, they have no
choice but to rely on their own direct methods.

Thirteen interviewees also mentioned the Sayama Case19 in
their criticism of the government, of whom eleven saw the continuing saga of
the elderly Ishikawa’s ongoing appeals as nothing less than government
discrimination. All regarded the matter as a barrier to any solution,
insisting that only if this particular issue is resolved can progress be
made and that only by a full pardon from the government can such a
resolution occur20. The residents of Buraku X have clearly taken the
issue onboard, but none elaborated or tried to explain what aspects of the
case they felt were so unjust21. [J], who was always direct in her dealings
with me and with the public in general, makes quite an effort to bring
buraku issues to people’s attention. The Sayama Case was no different:

…whenever I speak about the Sayama Case…you should see
the looks on the people’s faces and they would just say “Oh that has
nothing to do with us”…but the moment you mention Ishikawa, every
burakumin [sic] knows what it is all about and so do they. On
one occasion I stood up and yelled to a group of unreceptive school
mothers “I am from the buraku, just like Ishikawa…so what about
that then…I was too poor to go to school”. That spread very quickly and my
kids told me that their friends were told not to invite them back to their
home and so on.

[J]’s commitment, energy and confidence are admirable
qualities, but she admitted that she does engender some negative reaction
because of her directness when putting buraku matters before
unreceptive audiences. In the end, the Sayama Case remains unresolved and,
like the Fundamental Law issue, is almost unsolvable. The government cannot
give in to one of the nation’s most disliked activist groups and, in turn,
the latter will never abandon what for so long has been one of the most
intense campaigns of its fight for equality.

3.3. Some buraku Residents Also Have To Change

One issue which was in total contrast to criticisms that
“the government is to blame”, “we need new laws” and that “mainstream people
are too prejudiced”, was that some fault lay with the residents of the
buraku themselves and that, in order to effect social liberation and
ultimate equality, they may need to look closer to home. Five interviewees
expressed this opinion, although it must be stressed that seeing some
measure of fault as lying with the residents of the buraku did not
mean that those same interviewees were not critical of the government and of
mainstream narrow-mindedness. And nor were they suggesting that the problem
lay in any way with the residents. It was more that they could “help” create
a better understanding. [Q]’s criticism was about family values and
buraku residents’ continued acceptance of mainstream domination:

The young generation [buraku youth] neglect
their parents and their grandparents…they even neglect their own kids if
they get tired of being parents… the situation involves not just
mainstream people. Our own people have to stop being mainstream
handmaidens (abridged).

[C] was equally forthright, although, like the others, he
had also levelled much of the blame at the government, mainstream attitudes
and “the system” in general:

There are some things which so-called burakumin
have to do to help get rid of prejudice…some of them are just plain lazy.
They have got to look at themselves and say “look at me…I’m nothing…I
can’t do anything…that’s why I am stuck here like this”. They have got to
start looking forwards and helping create a future for themselves.

What is also significant about these three comments is
that [Q], [C]and [A] (plus [B] and [F] to a lesser extent) form a small
sub-group which is shown in Figure 2.

As Figure 2 shows, five of the younger interviewees, four
of whom were educated beyond secondary school and all of whom are involved
in working with buraku youth, were the only ones who volunteered the
notion that some attitudes among some buraku residents need to
improve in order to help the process of removing mainstream attitudes of
prejudice. Among the other interviewees, none had received much education at
all and even the younger ones had only made it to secondary school. Even at
that stage, [B], for example, stopped attending after she found her desk
pushed into the corridor after her ex-best friend had visited her in the
buraku. In spite of this experience, about which she is still angry, [B]
did also acknowledge that:

some buraku parents also have to change their
ideas…they have to show more interest in their kids.22

[A], [Q], [B], [F] and [C], on the other hand, have put
more of their energy into working with buraku youth, rather than
exclusively lambasting the government and mainstream attitudes. Accordingly,
they have developed a broader perspective on the issue although the ferocity
with which most of the respondents criticised exclusively the government and
mainstream Japanese society suggests that the comments from [A], [Q], [B],
[F] and [C] might not be well received by the others. In fact, in the midst
of explaining why they blame the government and why they need legislation,
eleven residents emphasised quite aggressively that none of the fault lies
with the buraku residents at all. So while we might feel that there
is room for debate on this particular issue, neither side would see very
much merit in the other’s opinion. This is somewhat ironic because, in
attacking mainstream Japanese for their single-mindedness and refusal to
listen (“they won’t take a blind bit of notice” [P, female, 53]), most of
the residents themselves displayed a similar reluctance to engage with
opposing aspects of the discourse. Only five of 21 appeared willing to
entertain some amount of self-criticism, although it is worth noting that
the criticism was aimed at certain aspects of some residents and most
definitely not at all residents in general simply for being
burakujūmin. Apart from [B], the
other four self critics have been well educated and are now relatively
successful in life. Their achievements have shown them that as individuals
they can rise above their stereotypical buraku image and, although
they have remained highly critical of mainstream prejudice and what they
regard as governmental inaction, their success has at least armed them with
the ability to look at the debate from more than one perspective. Even for
them, however, the dilemma remains, for in spite of their relative
confidence, all five also featured in the statistics of those who have
mainstream friends whom they would not tell about their ancestry and of
those who, apart from [B], are unwilling to challenge an action of prejudice
in public. In other words, they are not as comfortable with their own
buraku identity as they would like to be, even as they believe
themselves to be. Such is the influence of social prejudice.

3.4. The Liberation Philosophy Matters

It would be overly naïve to suggest that the only
difference between the two principal liberation activist groups is whether
burakujūmin should take direct,
affirmative action (BKD), or whether they should lie low and let the issue
disappear of its own accord in the fullness of time (Zenkairen). The
BKD has a very high profile in BurakuX and its influence was
unquestionably evident as 19 interviewees referred directly to supporting
the BKD’s approach (including how important it is to tell buraku
children of their ancestry and with eight criticising the “neta ko o
okosu na” policy of the Zenkairen by name and explaining how they
were so totally opposed to it23. [L, female, 60], for example, said that the
Zenkairen‘s policy was:

simply and totally wrong…the path to solving the
problem is by discussing the problem, openly and accurately, not by hiding
it. That’s what happened to me when I was a kid. They just thought that if
they all kept quiet about it and said nothing then I wouldn’t need to know
about the problem…then one day at school the teacher divided us into 2
groups. He came over to our group and said “you kids are from the
buraku so have a think about prejudice against buraku people…”
That memory is still clear in my mind, especially when I think back to the
fact that we didn’t know what he was talking about so we couldn’t say
anything.

The difficulty is that the policies of “do we tell our
children?” or “don’t we tell them?” are mutually exclusive, yet both seem to
have merit. What was clear was that the residents in Buraku X were
overwhelmingly in agreement with telling their children, but whether this
was through individual choice of a personal ethos, or part of what Upham
refers to as “toeing the BKD line”24, we cannot really say, but I suspect it
has its origins, at least, in the latter.

4. A Message For Mainstream Japanese

One of the questions which I put to all interviewees was
“Do you have a message for mainstream Japan?” This item was included in
Figure 1 but is now expanded in Figure 3.

4.1. We Are Denied Human Rights

Nineteen of the 64 specific replies to the “message for
mainstream” question centred on the most emotive gap between buraku
residents and mainstream, namely the feeling that mainstream Japanese regard
buraku residents as something less than human and that anti-burakujūmin
prejudice is, therefore, unworthy of inclusion within the broader portfolio
of human rights. Most mainstream Japanese would obviously deny any
suggestion that they regard burakujūmin
as “less than human”, yet it is their continued participation in a system of
social attitudes which leaves the residents feeling so excluded and
powerless. But the interviewees, basing their comments on the “they must
see us as less than human because we are denied human rights”, feel
powerless to do anything in reply. On the human rights issue [J] and [N]
were very to the point, as were nine others:

The simple reason we have so many human rights
violations in Japan, not just against us but against so many people, is
that Japanese have a very poor sense of human rights awareness. They
don’t care about others. [J]

We are Japanese citizens. Surely our human rights
need to be protected too. If human rights were a priority in Japan,
anti-buraku prejudice would be quickly solved. [N]

To underline the human rights issue in the previous
paragraph, seven respondents made the deliberate comment that “buraku
residents are human beings”. The fact that seven interviewees stressed this
point suggests that they feel as though they are regarded as non-humans,
just as the original outcast groups of eta and hinin were
excluded from the 4-tier social structure of Edo Japan. Two mentioned their
human existence in metaphysical terms such as “we also have red blood in our
veins” and “we have hearts and minds and feelings and brains”, but more
common were statements such as:

why can’t they understand that we are all humans,
mainstream and burakumin…yet how pitiful to be judged solely on
the place we were born in. [Q]

The human/non-human debate issue has become a very
emotive one. Even the most virulent mainstream detractors could never
seriously level a non-human criticism and buraku residents themselves
must know full well that such is the case. However, given the historic
origins of their outcast status and the influence of the BKD in Buraku X,
residents most certainly see their continued exclusion as an infringement of
human rights.

4.2. Mainstream Japanese Are Victims Too

This comment arose in eight interviews, claiming that
those who are exposed to prejudice inherit the attitude, apply it and
eventually pass it on. Dōwa
education25 includes BKD-scripted public education seminars aimed at informing
people about Tokugawa history, the origins of eta towns and the
circumstances of buraku communities today, but it is very unlikely
that entrenched mainstream detractors would attend any such session and even
more unlikely that, if they did, they would leave the programme with a total
change of heart.

So while criticism of mainstream prejudice was, as one
might expect, one of the most prevalent issues throughout the interviews,
eight residents blamed greater Japanese society, in particular mainstream
parents who sow the seeds of prejudice, themselves having also been exposed
to the same cycle one generation earlier. [B, female, 33] and [A, male, 21]
saw the vicious cycle as:

[often] people don’t even realise what they are doing
and saying…and they certainly don’t understand the effect they have on
other people. How can they…all they are doing is what society has taught
them to do. So many Japanese people say and even believe that the
problem has been solved, simply because the buraku areas have
been rebuilt. If they have been misinformed, either deliberately or by
accident, can we really blame them? [B]

If mainstream parents pass things on, even very
delicately and sometimes unaware, can we really blame their children for
taking the same attitude? Those children then become parents and so the
cycle goes. They are all victims of the system. [A]

However, those who saw mainstream derogators as partial
victims themselves were no less determined in their desire to see people
change the way they think and behave as the key to solving anti-burakujūmin
prejudice. Among the younger interviewees, [F] and [A] join [B], [Q] and [C]
in displaying the greatest understanding that the problem is often forced
upon the transgressors, thereby making themselves victims. Once again, the
less accusatory ideology which was so dominant in all other interviews had a
more subtle tangent as well. [F], [B], [C], [Q] and four others again
expressed their less hard-nosed approach to the issue by identifying just
what it is that they regard as “the system”, namely Japan’s well documented
propensity for in-group/out-group delineation.

4.3. Japan’s Traditional Social Hierarchy Prevents
Attitude Change

The concept of groupism and in-group/out-group ideology
is one of the psychological issues which keep Japanese society stratified
and non-integrated. In the 21st century, the number of international
marriages and the influx of foreigners into Japan make something of a
mockery of many Japanese people’s adherence to their “Japanese race”
philosophy and to the government’s rigid enforcement of nationality by
jus sanguis (by blood) rather than jus locus (by place of birth).
The BKD maintains its vigorous criticism of the imperial family system as
the most insidious aspect of Japan’s vertical hierarchy, claiming that for
as long as there is a social pyramid with a privileged head at the top,
there must also be an equally underprivileged group at the bottom, in this
case the buraku residents. [G] explained it in these terms:

If there is the society which concentrates itself
around the Emperor, then the Emperor’s society will continue. If there
is a society of aristocrats, then there is also the society of us very
ordinary labourers down at the bottom with our very ordinary wishes. But
only when we all start eating the same rice, does the ice begin to melt
and the logic of togetherness start to spread.

[A] and [Q] were typical and equally clear:

The old 4-tiered caste system which started in
Tokugawa led to today’s system. Japanese people must abandon the old
idea of judging everybody...it’s one of our worst characteristics…we
divide everything up between what is supposedly good and supposedly bad
and that is what prejudice is all about…mainstream people are good,
buraku people are bad. [Q]

Japanese people have this obsession about not being
individuals…they feel that they have to fit in with the group, in line
with social or parental expectation. Parents tell their kids who they
must or must not marry…but they have to start looking outside of group
pressure…judge others on their conscience, not on the group ethos. [A]

[C] felt that, although he was a confident young man and
had, in many ways, grown beyond feeling offended at comments and hand
gestures aimed at insulting buraku residents, he still regarded the
buraku as sanctuary from those incidents:

at least inside the buraku I am the same as
everybody else because we are all so-called burakumin. Nobody
here judges me as better or worse than they are, except by my own merits
and defects. So a bad type in the buraku is rightly judged as a
bad character because of what he does, not because of where he was born.
That’s the only division in here that matters.26

In all, eleven interviewees referred to the lack of
individuality that Japanese people feel and how that pressure of belonging
is what often drives the Japanese psyche, rather than applying objective
criteria which judge each person as an individual. This makes prejudice
difficult to control. [Q]’s explanation of the judging process was among the
most poignant of all the comments:

Japanese young people can go to a good school, study
hard, join a good company and make enormous progress. The mother
understands this progression and tells her kids every day “study hard,
study hard”. That’s what all parents hope for and strive for so the
“good school…good university…good job” idea becomes their main thought.
Unfortunately, there is no such connection for our children from the
buraku. It makes no difference what school or university they go to
because it is always mainstream people, who can’t judge others purely on
their merits as individuals, who make the final decisions.

There is a sense in what many told me about their
loathing of being judged because of their buraku address that some
residents would actually have no objection to being judged “buraku
residents” if the status ceased to involve any negative connotation. If it
were no different from describing someone else as “living in area ABC” or
“born in area DEF”, for example, and if the current judgemental process
ceased to apply, the problem could quickly be so much less as to almost not
matter. What a short step it could be from there to a final solution.

4.4. Learn About Us

Eleven residents felt that one important barrier to
removing anti-buraku prejudice was that so much of what protagonists
are told and subsequently believe and transmit is simply based on false
information. I was repeatedly told that if “neutral” mainstream citizens
would learn the truth, that would be a major step forward. [Q] was
appropriately realistic, but also optimistic enough, to hope that if the
combined activities of all buraku people and their groups could
“change one person out of every ten, then that is something.” A number made
the point that my research was the only such project they could remember and
five interviewees hoped to see some tangible result from the research,

The BKD claims that one of the reasons people are so
uninformed is that the school curricula have never dealt with the issue.
Specialist texts on Tokugawa history and society mention only the shi-nō-kō-sho
four tiers of the caste system, almost inevitably with no reference at all
to the outcaste groups of eta and hinin. Texts on Meiji
history make no mention of the Emancipation Edict nor of the buraku
nor their residents and general social studies texts today still offer no
more than a passing reference to the existence of outcasts who once existed,
making no reference to the situation in the buraku today. The BKD’s
insistence on human rights programmes in schools is largely only in
operation in schools which service a buraku community27. The BKD and
other groups have written their own texts and introduced “Dōwa
Day” when buraku leaders and parents visit the local school
and talk about prejudice and discrimination. This process does cause
friction on both sides, as [Q] explained:

I visited one of the other schools which is not near
a buraku community and I simply was not allowed to do any of the
things I wanted. I guess if you want to introduce an education platform
in the schools it seems as though it has to be only those schools with
buraku areas near them…so although people now say dōwa
rather than buraku, it’s not that they are understanding
anything, it’s just that they think they are kidding us by using the
correct word. Within the framework of dōwa
education is education about anti-buraku prejudice and they don’t
like mentioning that. They just say it’s our problem and our
fault. The problem of unenlightenment is so deep that it includes people
who you think are on your side. [Q]

[Q] also raised the issue of mainstream people pretending
to have seen the light, but who are really just making a superficial
appearance of having done so:

And these buraku people who think they have to
do all they can to make mainstream people happy so that in the end they
get told “yes I know we opposed your marriage but you have given us this
beautiful grandchild and you really are a fantastic son-in-law”. I hate
those comments because they are meaningless words which have no element
of honesty about them.

What we are left with from the issue of “learn about us”
is that the barriers are not just on one side. Many mainstream people are
reluctant to give up their time to attend seminars and the like on issues
which they believe, often quite genuinely, no longer exist. On the other
hand, fear of becoming bogged down on issues which they feel, rightly or
wrongly, they are not allowed to debate freely may also be forcing some
mainstream people to pretend they understand and others to make no comment
at all.

5. Conclusions

In this paper I have analysed the respondents’ opinions
about what they feel needs to happen in order to begin solving the problem
of anti-buraku prejudice. Because Buraku X is “BKD territory”,
it is hardly surprising that so many of the 21 respondents were very much in
support of that organisation and so opposed to the alternative approach by
the Zenkairen. The number of references throughout the interviews to
“mainstream people don’t know the truth about us…they won’t listen…they
pretend to listen…they walk away…they hate us because of all the wrong
reasons” and so on suggests, however, that there is something which has not
quite gelled in the BKD’s information campaign.

The main theme of this paper has been that mainstream
society and the government of Japan somehow do not understand the
circumstances and experiences of buraku residents, a scenario which
begs the question “why don’t they understand?” Or, do they understand but
will not comment, and if that is the case, “why won’t they comment?” Getting
people to change their minds about psychological issues like prejudice is a
most difficult task and, while such a change may be seen as the first step
towards changing this style of thinking, in fact it is not. The first step
is actually clearing the pathway between opposing opinions in order to allow
stifled debate to re-emerge.

In the meantime, uninformed mainstream Japanese continue
to hide behind old-fashioned prejudices, some even willing to forego
friendships and family relationships in order to preserve whatever it is
they still believe is so special about being Japanese, or so contemptible
about the people who live in a buraku. If they feel they have no
right to question the issues which the activists put in front of them, one
can hardly be surprised by their reluctance to engage with the issues and
their tardiness to change opinions which have been in vogue for centuries
and with which they have grown up.

On the other hand, buraku residents, empowered by
the BKD’s activities and reputation, enjoy the protection of its influence
but lament that they are not understood. Social prejudice is a psychological
process and such psychological inclination does not change by itself.
Rather, it needs a corridor of debate along which the plusses and minuses
can be hammered out and various “give and take” factors established so that
new understandings may eventually begin to emerge. The power of legislation,
when applied rationally rather than vindictively, can help establish the
foundation that such debate is socially desirable and appropriate. This is
the crucial stage, for only when those new understandings have emerged on
both sides can covert prejudice give way to a style of thinking which is
objective and based on tangible evidence, rather than on old-fashioned
ignorance, on both sides. Many mainstream Japanese do have to revisit
how they feel about buraku residents, an approach which
is now 150 years overdue. However, not only is any such change of mainstream
attitudes a most difficult process28, but only five of my interviewees were in
any way prepared to accept that buraku residents can also help by
looking more objectively at the issues. Therefore, it is unhelpful for
either side to stand resolute and claim that the other is exclusively to
blame for the current stalemate.

Public credibility for any activist group is also
essential and the BKD needs to look at its most dogmatic ideologies and
re-evaluate them as helpful or destructive towards eradicating anti-buraku
prejudice. Furthermore, people like [J], who almost delights in pushing her
buraku resident’s status in front of people in what seems a
mischievous, if not antagonistic, manner, might also think about how else
they might make their point without alienating those around them. When I
suggested to [J] that some people might take offence at her approach, she
again dismissed my suggestion with a wave of her hand and said “why would I
care about that...they have to learn”. In the end, it is impossible to tell
what the solution is and, indeed, it is highly improbable that there is
actually only “one” solution. But the residents of BurakuX
remain unmoved in their criticism of what they see as governmental
inactivity and mainstream dogma based on ignorance and, in their eyes,
changing those phenomena is the first step.

Notes

1. The word buraku
literally means small village but for many Japanese, the immediate
connotation of buraku is of a despised community of Tokugawa outcast
descendants. The word’s association with discriminated buraku
communities means that it is seldom used today in its original meaning,
around the Kansai area where the greatest numbers of buraku
communities are found. Residents of buraku communities are generally
referred to as burakumin (people of the buraku) although they
regard the title as insulting, discriminatory and separatist. In 1997, the
BKD coined the term

burakujūmin (buraku residents) in an
attempt to convince the public that many residents have no such ancestry and
that there is no logic in discriminating against people simply because they
live in a certain neighbourhood.

4. In 1959, the government
finally introduced legislation to set up the 1961 Deliberative Council. This
culminated in the Deliberative Council Report of 1965 and finally the series
of Special Measures Legislation (SML) starting in 1969. SML generated 13,880
billion yen between 1969 and 1993 for the improvement of buraku areas
and education. The total series of SML included the Law on Special Measures
for

Dōwa
Projects (1969 plus extensions), the Law on Special Measures for Regional
Improvements (1982 plus extensions), the Law on Budgetary Measures
Concerning Projects for Dōwa
Regional Improvements (1987) and the Covenant on Dōwa
Materials for Schools (1994).

Kaihō Kenkyūjo
(1991) 112-113. Over half of my respondents reported experiences of
opposition to marriage, two had been humiliated by school teachers and one
had even been kidnapped. Others had had friendships abruptly terminated
while three reported offensive comments. During my stay in Buraku X,
I witnessed anti-buraku graffiti on the toilets in the park bordering
the buraku. The graffiti referred to buraku residents as
eta filth and animals. See also McLauchlan (2002) and McLauchlan
(2000b).

10. Where the BKD can identify
the transgressors in what it deems to be discriminatory behaviour, the
accused are required to appear before a public tribunal held on BKD
premises. Early sessions were hallmarked by violence and kidnapping,
although today’s sessions are far less intimidating. Be that as it may, many
people claim the sessions still violate individual human rights and there is
no doubt that they are still very frightening for the parties appearing. The
government is unhappy with the process but the BKD vows to continue them
until the government introduces specific anti-discrimination legislation.
The BKD holds about 50 sessions per year.

11. Some companies may practice
‘self-censorship’ but I would argue that this is only a variation of the
same theme. Van Wolferen’s experiences over publishing the Japanese version
of his book The Enigma of Japanese Power, and my own experiences with
Japanese publishing houses who claimed that “the issue is too delicate for
us to handle” suggest that the BKD’s censorship role is extant.

13. This information was
provided during one of my fieldwork interviews with several BKD officials,
including the Secretary-General, Suehiro Kitaguchi. The higher than normal
representation of non-Japanese residents in Buraku X reflects the
profile of the BKD there and its willingness to accommodate, even to
encourage, outsiders into the community. The government’s 1993 survey of all
buraku districts found that overall, almost 50% of buraku
residents had no historic or recent buraku connection (based on
numbers who were receiving d

ōwa
assistance under the Special Measures funding), having shifted in from
mainstream society. So-called ‘non-burakujūmin’
inside buraku neighbourhoods also include substantial numbers who
deny any burakujūminassociation. See Sōmuchō in Reference List.

14. Rent in Buraku X is
approximately 50% of the going rate for east Osaka and school fees and
associated expenses are all provided for. Facilities in the community
include a pre-school facility, swimming pool, youth club, job search
service, library, human rights centre, health centre, problem solving
counseling and a retirement home. The facilities, probably unmatched
anywhere else in Osaka, were all built with government money and the BKD
frequently invites non-buraku residents to enjoy the facilities
whenever they wish, although the retirement home (where I lived during my
fieldwork!) remains for the exclusive use of Buraku X residents. However,
very few outsiders take up the invitation and even the health centre, which
is built immediately next to, but deliberately NOT on, buraku land,
is so poorly patronized by mainstream residents that it is in danger of
closing.

15. The BKD’s high profile in
Buraku X includes numerous signs and posters demanding an end to
discrimination and aggressively promoting retribution against those who
transgress. Although outside the brief of this paper, I also spoke to 36
neighbouring mainstream residents and attempted to engage them in my
research. Notwithstanding the well-documented Japanese propensity to avoid
direct statements, especially to strangers, none of the residents would
comment in any way on the research. All just nodded or muttered “is that
right?’ or “are you?” Most live very close to the buraku so it is
impossible that they are unaware of the issues. Some may have anti-buraku
attitudes and some may have simply not wished to comment to an unknown
foreigner, but what is significant is that not one offered any hint of
encouragement or support.

16. Japan has 13 Fundamental
Laws such as the Fundamental Law for Education. A fundamental law does not
provide specific offence/punishment strategies, but acts as a platform
whence further specific legislation can be launched. The BKD’s draft demands
that the government take measures to eradicate prejudice, that it conducts
regular surveys and that its introduces specific anti-prejudice legislation.

17. See McLauchlan (2001)
178-201 for a detailed examination of the government’s approach to the
problem since 1871.

burakujūmin
Diet member and wrote to him prior to my fieldwork. No reply was ever
received. Furthermore, Kitaguchi explained that there are several others in
the Japanese parliament who have never allowed their buraku origins
to be made public.

19. Ishikawa was a buraku
resident in Sayama who was arrested and accused of the murder of mainstream
girl almost 40 years ago. He has always maintained his innocence and the
case has become a cause celebre for the BKD.

20. While I was living in
Buraku X, the final stages of the latest Sayama appeal were underway,
which may have prompted so many respondents to mention the issue. Ishikawa
was released from prison several years ago, but on one occasion during my
stay, the residents held a community meeting with banners calling Ishikawa’s
murder conviction “the government’s commitment to anti-buraku
discrimination” and demanding nothing less than a total pardon.

21. The United Nations has
asked the government to release all of its documents pertaining to the
Sayama Case but the government refuses to do so.

22. I regularly observed a
group of young teenagers in Buraku X who seemed aimless and totally
disinterested in any positive aspect of their lives. One was frequently
prostrate and under the influence of some substance. My gatekeepers took
action but described them as the “sad and often inevitable result of social
alienation and subsequent poor parenting”.

25. Dōwa is
the government’s official term for describing buraku issues (See
McLauchlan 2002 for a full explanation of how the term came about and of all
the other words coined to describe the residents of buraku areas
since the Meiji Restoration).

26. [C] was one of the small
number who, while critical of mainstream Japanese who will not allow
buraku residents to integrate, was also very clear about the role that
some residents themselves have to play in changing their own attitudes and
behaviour.

27. While there are no longer “buraku
schools”, those schools which have buraku areas in their catchment
areas receive extra funding and lower teacher/pupil ratios. These are the
schools which many mainstream parents will still try to avoid by sending
their children to a school which does not have any buraku communities
within its catchment area.

(2001) “Japanese Authorities and the Buraku
Issue: Was it really 130 Years of “Conniving?” In Asian Nationalism
in an Age of Globalization, edited by Starrs, R, 178-201. Richmond,
Surrey: Japan Library, 2001.

Upham, F.K.Law and Social Change in Postwar Japan.
Harvard University Press, 1987.

About the author

Alastair McLauchlan is Senior Lecturer at the
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of
Technology in New Zealand. He has recently
completed his PhD thesis based on fieldwork conducted while he resided in an
Osaka buraku community with an active BKD presence. His major work on the
buraku issue was writing an introduction for, and translating,
Professor Suehiro Kutaguchi's work An Introduction to the The Buraku Issue: Questions and Answers (Curzon,
1999). He also holds a Masters degree in education (with distinction), a BA
(Hons) in Japanese, a BA in French and a Diploma in Teaching.

Copyright: Alastair
McLauchlan
This page was first created on 31 January 2003. It was last modified on
30 January 2006.

This website is best viewed with
a screen resolution of 1024x768 pixels and using Microsoft
Internet Explorer or Mozilla
Firefox.No modifications have been made to the main text of this page
since it was first posted on ejcjs.
If you have any suggestions for improving or adding to this page
or this site then please e-mail your suggestions to the editor.
If you have any difficulties with this website then please send
an e-mail to the
webmaster.